Even though "Golden State" technically refers to the entire state, in this context to me it represents the East Bay as they have been Golden State the whole time they have been in Oakland. I would like to see them keep it.

BayAreaHoopz wrote:I would be down for the San Francisco Warriors. The term "Golden State" refers to the entire state of California and not just for the Bay Area. Its too general. As great as the fans are here, the Lakers are still the team in California. It gives the Warriors a lack of identity. Some of the biggest names played for the San Francisco Warriors...Rick Barry and Wilt Chamberlain. They changed their name when they moved to Oakland so its only fitting that they reclaim the name when they move back. Their logo has the Golden Gate Bridge on it as well as some nifty alternate Golden Gate Orange jerseys, which are synonymous with the city of SF. Not Oakland and certainly not the entire state of California.

I agree that the team needs to be named after the immediate area they are located in. I'd prefer Bay Area Warriors, second to that, San Francisco Warriors.

Golden State for sure. It's already been said, but it's unique and sounds cooler, IMO. I hope they don't change it, but they've been the San Francisco Warriors before, so it wouldn't be all that big of a change.

San Francisco has become one of the best sports cities next to places like New York and Los Angeles. I don't see how and why Lacob wouldn't capitalize on that. The Niners are moving to Santa Clara, but there is a reason why they plan to keep the San Francisco name. If you're moving into a bigger market, which is what the Warriors are doing, you have to change the name. Golden State makes me think of Oakland, who are notorious for not supporting their teams but the ones that do are truly fanatical. They don't have the casual sports fans like the Giants or Niners. Example....The A's are having a magical season games down the stretch were critical ones, yet they were still 10,000 short of selling out. They're also 27th in the league in terms of attendance, but 20th if you account for the seating percentage. The Raiders is the same story. They're 26th out of 32 teams. You can argue that the Raiders just aren't that good, but in 2007, the Niners won 5 games for the entire season yet they were 12th in the league in attendance. The Raiders won 4 games and were 32nd in attendance.

When they make the move, the have to disassociate themselves with Oracle and Oakland. They have to forge their own market in San Francisco, which I think they will easily do. But in order to do that, they have to associate themselves with the city and nothing does that more than renaming the team to the San Francisco Warriors which would connect them to two storied franchises...the Giants and 49ers.

It should have been Oakland Warriors when they moved; it should be San Francisco when they return. It should also be Anaheim Angels. I like that the Marlins are now Miami.

32 wrote:

hummbabybear wrote:Golden State is stupid; its always been stupid.

Would you care to expand on this?

I don't understand what the problem is. It's a general name because the team belongs to the entire Bay Area. It's not San Francisco's team, it's not Oakland's team, it's not an East or West Bay team. It's the Golden State Warriors. The Bay Area is the backbone of this state. Los Angeles gets a lot of ink, but when it comes down to it, the technology is here, the music is here, the sports teams that matter are here. Sacramento is a historical state landmark, Los Angeles is the loud, glamorous little sister, we've all heard about the beaches in San Diego and Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara... but the Bay Area is the capital of this state. It's the most diverse, progressive, forward-thinking market on the West Coast. And there's no need to cannonize one part of our region over the over; San Francisco alone does not encompass the entire Bay.

I'm actually surprised to hear a Californian object to the name, hummbabybear. Typically, it's only been East Coasters that I've noted as complaining about our name. What's your reasoning?

You know, there is something that must be said about the new arena. Many of the photos show the stadium as if it were daytime. I realized that since most games are night time, people aren't going to experience the walkway by the bay and many of the views. It will be night time. But because of the new beautiful views, I'm hoping that the Warriors will have some day games on the weekends. Normally they only play 1 or 2 day games a year. But it would be unfortunate to not be able to take advantage of some of the day views.

The nice thing about that area is, that it looks awesome at night as well. The lighted sidewalks, palm trees and lights all give it a nice feel. Then you have the backdrop of the lighted Bay Bridge. Its a place where fans will arrive early and spend time around the area before the game. Maybe grab a bite at the Embarcadero or the Ferry Building. They could do much more on weekend games. Families can plan weekend getaways in the city. Those are things you just can't do at the Oracle. Would be nice for visiting teams as well. This will generate serious revenues for the city, which is what they need.

It's great that the new arena is going to be decked out with the newest technology and all, but one thing I don't like that I have heard is that the new arena is going to have significantly lesser seating. Now I don't know jack **** about basketball economics or economics in general, but my first concern is that it's going to be more expensive. Even now, while the dubs are in oakland, people are coming to the games even though we're losing. In 2017, assuming that this franchise has turned a corner and become a relevant franchise, more people are going to want to go to the games with limited seating. I know right now we have about 17,000-18,0000 max capacity. I remember reading that the new arena is going to be somewhere 13k. That's a huge difference ladies and gents.

Another thing I hope doesn't happen is the whole celebrity appearance crap. Like how Lakers and Knicks games have become a red carpet. **** like that drives up ticket prices for fans too. The exposure is cool, and it's even nice to see celebs if you're a groupie and all, but at the end of the day, I'm trying to go see games. I'm a broke ass student and higher ticket prices arent going to help me get to the games.

8th ave wrote:It's great that the new arena is going to be decked out with the newest technology and all, but one thing I don't like that I have heard is that the new arena is going to have significantly lesser seating. Now I don't know jack **** about basketball economics or economics in general, but my first concern is that it's going to be more expensive. Even now, while the dubs are in oakland, people are coming to the games even though we're losing. In 2017, assuming that this franchise has turned a corner and become a relevant franchise, more people are going to want to go to the games with limited seating. I know right now we have about 17,000-18,0000 max capacity. I remember reading that the new arena is going to be somewhere 13k. That's a huge difference ladies and gents.

Another thing I hope doesn't happen is the whole celebrity appearance crap. Like how Lakers and Knicks games have become a red carpet. **** like that drives up ticket prices for fans too. The exposure is cool, and it's even nice to see celebs if you're a groupie and all, but at the end of the day, I'm trying to go see games. I'm a broke ass student and higher ticket prices arent going to help me get to the games.

I understand your position. Yes, the tickets will be more expensive. So you might have to just go to less games if you are concerned with saving more money. So yea I guess they will have less seats, but just charge more. As far as the celebrity appearances, I think that will be something that will occur much more in such a state of the art building. All kinds of stars are gonna come to the stadium, it probably will have an AT&T type feel to it, just the best park in the sport. So yes I think thing will change, we just have to go along with it. 5 years is a while though. You might have more income by that time and be able to still go to the games. I think the extra increase in price will be worth it though.